메뉴
Adversarial code review using the opposite model. Spawns 1–3 reviewers on the opposing model (Claude spawns Codex, Codex spawns Claude) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Triggers: "adversarial review".
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/pedronauck/skills --skill adversarial-review명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
Cross-LLM peer review of an implemented change (the diff) via `compozy exec`: an independent reviewer runtime pressure-tests the diff and writes one scoped Markdown findings artifact for user-directed remediation. Project-agnostic — any repo or language; auto-discovers project rule files and the verify command. Use after an implementation pass (feature, bug fix, refactor) when the user explicitly asks for an external review of the diff before commit or PR. Do not use for spec/TechSpec review — use spec-peer-review.
Implements concurrent Go patterns using goroutines and channels, designs and builds microservices with gRPC or REST, optimizes Go application performance with pprof, and enforces idiomatic Go with generics, interfaces, and robust error handling. Use when building Go applications requiring concurrent programming, microservices architecture, or high-performance systems. Invoke for goroutines, channels, Go generics, gRPC integration, CLI tools, benchmarks, or table-driven testing.
VC outreach and raise execution: investor target lists (partner-level, tiered), warm-intro and cold-email plays that convert to first calls, meeting prep and objection handling, the parallel-process pipeline (batching, momentum, follow-ups), and diligence through close (data room, references, term-sheet-to-wire). Use when a founder needs an investor list, wants intros or cold emails to VCs, is preparing for or debriefing an investor meeting, is managing an active raise pipeline, or is assembling a data room. Don't use for deck authoring (use vc-pitch-deck) or for round sizing, narrative, and term economics (use vc-strategy).
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | adversarial-review |
| description | Adversarial code review using the opposite model. Spawns 1–3 reviewers on the opposing model (Claude spawns Codex, Codex spawns Claude) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Triggers: "adversarial review". |
| schedule | After cook sessions that produce large diffs (200+ lines), implement plan phases, or complete a planning session |
Spawn reviewers on the opposite model to challenge work. Reviewers attack from distinct lenses grounded in brain principles. The deliverable is a synthesized verdict — do NOT make changes.
Hard constraint: Reviewers MUST run via the opposite model's CLI (codex exec or
claude -p). Do NOT use subagents, the Agent tool, or any internal delegation mechanism as
reviewers — those run on your own model, which defeats the purpose.
Read brain/principles.md. Follow every [[wikilink]] and read each linked principle file.
These govern reviewer judgments.
Identify what to review from context (recent diffs, referenced plans, user message).
Determine the intent — what the author is trying to achieve. This is critical: reviewers challenge whether the work achieves the intent well, not whether the intent is correct. State the intent explicitly before proceeding.
Assess change size:
| Size | Threshold | Reviewers |
|---|---|---|
| Small | < 50 lines, 1–2 files | 1 (Skeptic) |
| Medium | 50–200 lines, 3–5 files | 2 (Skeptic + Architect) |
| Large | 200+ lines or 5+ files | 3 (Skeptic + Architect + Minimalist) |
Read references/reviewer-lenses.md for lens definitions.
Create a temp directory for reviewer output:
REVIEW_DIR=$(mktemp -d /tmp/adversarial-review.XXXXXX)
Determine which model you are, then spawn reviewers on the opposite:
If you are Claude → spawn Codex reviewers via codex exec:
codex exec --skip-git-repo-check -o "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" "prompt" 2>/dev/null
Use --profile edit only if the reviewer needs to run tests. Default to read-only.
Run with run_in_background: true, monitor via TaskOutput with block: true, timeout: 600000.
If you are Codex → spawn Claude reviewers via claude CLI:
claude -p "prompt" > "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" 2>/dev/null
Run with run_in_background: true.
Name each output file after the lens: skeptic.md, architect.md, minimalist.md.
Each reviewer gets a single prompt containing:
Spawn all reviewers in parallel.
Before reading reviewer output, log which CLI was used and confirm the output files exist:
echo "reviewer_cli=codex|claude"
ls "$REVIEW_DIR"/*.md
If any output file is missing or empty, note the failure in the verdict — do not silently skip a reviewer.
Read each reviewer's output file from $REVIEW_DIR/. Deduplicate overlapping findings.
Produce a single verdict:
## Intent
<what the author is trying to achieve>
## Verdict: PASS | CONTESTED | REJECT
<one-line summary>
## Findings
<numbered list, ordered by severity (high → medium → low)>
For each finding:
- **[severity]** Description with file:line references
- Lens: which reviewer raised it
- Principle: which brain principle it maps to
- Recommendation: concrete action, not vague advice
## What Went Well
<1–3 things the reviewers found no issue with — acknowledge good work>
Verdict logic:
After synthesizing the reviewers, apply your own judgment. Using the stated intent and brain principles as your frame, state which findings you would accept and which you would reject — and why. Reviewers are adversarial by design; not every finding warrants action. Call out false positives, overreach, and findings that mistake style for substance.
Append to the verdict:
## Lead Judgment
<for each finding: accept or reject with a one-line rationale>